Comment The lighting is also unpleasantly harsh for the UK - the EXIF data show it was taken in the early afternoon in summer. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2021 at 16:41:42 (UTC)
Raspberry
Halved raspberry
Many raspberries
Reason
This set was seen on Commons FPC last week, where it was featured unanimously. File:Raspberries (Rubus idaeus).jpg is of much greater resolution than an existing FP File:Raspberries05.jpg, which will be nominated for delisting if/when this nomination succeeds.
Weak Support, though some of this night time lighting stuff feels like a current fad, and these ancient structures will pass though this phase and never look like it again, having never looked like this in the past. Of course, I am presuming floodlights are actually making it look this way: If it really looks like, say, File:Castel Sant'Angelo at Night.jpg and this is a long-exposure artistic creation, then I'm not sure. This is kind of a genre of image that's popular now, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs10:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – As noted regarding Poznań Town Hall below, such intense nighttime lighting gives the structure an unreal aura. Plus, in this case the castle seems too far away. Tut mir Leid.– Sca (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Only used in an image gallery, and, except for the time it was shot, more or less the same perspective as the different lead image of the article. Is there enough encyclopedic value? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's better than the current lead, simply because of the better lighting. But they should be swapped first. Suggest switching and suspending the nom, or renominating later. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs23:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I could find the scans are about 10km wide and 1.5 seconds apart [5], so some of it is inevitable I suppose due to turbulent conditions. I checked the last 6 hurricane FPs [6] and 4 of them have similar scan lines, but more muted and not as obvious. I hadn't noticed them on this image, they are pronounced, I changed my vote to weak support. Bammesk (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Featured contents (FA, FP, FL) are about article quality (or improvement). This image is nominated as the 'best' depiction of this hurricane in the context of improving its article (adding EV to an article and helping readers understand an article). Bammesk (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2021 at 20:40:58 (UTC)
Reason
An encyclopedic depiction of Desert rose (crystal), a rose-like formation of gypsum crystal. The crop is a bit tight but that seems to be a common feature of many such images. It's a sharp image and shows the details well.
Support - great detail. If anyone is seriously bothered by the crop it could be easily edited to add a little more black within the FP rules. TSP (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2021 at 00:54:04 (UTC)
Reason
While a little under-sized, it's a lovely image that really captures the character of Mélisande. The pose, and having her hair down, makes this very obviously Act III, Scene 1.
I'm unable to find this image on Gallica. Is there a typo in the name there? As for the image itself, it's not terrible, but compared to the photos of him I could find on Gallica, looks to be very high contrast, and it cuts off a bit oddly. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs18:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I couldn't find it earlier either. I did another search and found it here. (I searched for "Agence de presse Meurisse", then used refine option with "Miguel"!) Bammesk (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, there is a tighter crop here. Feel free to introduce a CSS image crop as an Alternate. Personally I like the nominated crop because it shows the full length of his coat (it hints at the fashion of the time). I'll look into adjusting the levels. Bammesk (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Technically the photo has several problems (not sharp, distortion, etc.), but it is used well in 3 articles, and is somewhat historic. I'll touch up the photo and remove the minor spots if there is support for the nom. Bammesk (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2021 at 20:42:03 (UTC)
Reason
High-quality profile shot of a young politician sporting his unique and distinctive look. Light blue background isolates Anderson and likely is supposed to signify his affiliation with the Democratic Party. Has high value at Tay Anderson. Uploaded by Anderson or his campaign under CC-BY-SA-4.0, cropped by me.
Not a compelling portrait IMO. He isn't making a connection with the camera, and there is nothing in the composition to make up for it. Bammesk (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extremely unpleasant composition, tilt, shadows, messy foreground etc. Not one of Wikis "best", at least not visually. --Janke | Talk09:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – A historic moment, perhaps, but of middling import. Cluttered composition and suboptimal framing detract from EV. – Sca (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to have a fair bit of artefacting atop a really impressive artwork. I think it might be over-zoomed, given the museum itself offers a very slightly smaller download that lacks any of the issues. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs08:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning support This photo is genuinely iconic, and our article on it notes the rushed, crowded and somewhat chaotic conditions the photographer took it in, which explains the issues around composition, etc. I also don't see a problem with the focus being on the helmet - this is an image of combat soldiers involved in capturing the Western Wall taken shortly after it was captured during a war. I do wonder if this is the best possible digital version of the photo though given that the image is now PD - the highlights on the wall are blown, but if this was the case in the original negative there's not much we can/should do about it. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The EV in the articles this is used seems weak (for instance, it's been selected as a random car photo in the Technological fix article for some reason). A crop from the photo is used in the infobox at Dorothea Lange, which makes it difficult to include this version there if it depicts Lange on a notable trip which would be where the real EV is. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I added it to her article. It relates well to a major part of her career as a traveling photographer. It also has good EV in Rondal Partridge's article, the photographer and her mentee (assistant) over the course of their travels. By the way she is holding a large format camera. Bammesk (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of the visible imperfections (e.g. creases near the spine) add to the authenticity of the image without really detracting from its content, and given the quality of the original print I'm not sure that higher resolution is really necessary. But I'm a bit concerned about the jpeg artifacts visible in most of the shaded areas, their sudden disappearance into blur in the hat, and what look like unsharp masking artifacts near the contrasty parts of the image. I think maybe it's been a bit overprocessed. Is this really the best scan available? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Stable and appropriate lead image for a notable location, depicts the location well, high resolution and sharp, no technical flaws that I could spot. The boat coming in to the dock brings some nice action to an otherwise-static scene, draws the eye into the composition, and prevents the centering of the town from being problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2021 at 12:23:24 (UTC)
Reason
Data visualisation that had a notable, high impact on the world (see its article). Simple, but extremely effective - and goes to the core of what en.wp FPC is about.
Comment I would actually prefer the version with the yellow dots & curve, giving a better understanding of the trend. Of course, an SVG version of that would be even better... --Janke | Talk12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 04:48:26 (UTC)
Original – A nine-car Bay Area Rapid Transit train made of four C-type cars and five B-type cars. The B cars have identical windows at both ends and are strictly passenger cars. The C cars have an operator cab at one end, with narrower window, and can be used as an end car (i.e. control car).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 05:45:07 (UTC)
Reason
The image itself is of high-quality and gives context and EV for how much mass hysteria the broadcast of War of the Worlds caused, to the point Welles had to be interviewed to clarify the intent of the program. Part of an otherwise historical moment in radio.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2021 at 22:58:58 (UTC)
Reason
High-quality, compelling portrait of US senator Josh Hawley, an important figure in American politics right now and likely to come. High EV to Hawley and related articles.
Oppose. Now is a very poorly chosen moment to feature a picture of him as composed, official, and patriotic. It sends a message of non-neutrality, regardless of whether such a picture might be appropriate in other circumstances. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the nominator, I feel obligated to say this nomination wasn't POV, and I'm not too keen on personal attacks suggesting otherwise. To be frank, I don't like Hawley myself. This merely came about when I was editing the page and remarked to myself "huh, that's a pretty good photo." Nothing more. However, given the wide backlash against this nom, I can see this clearly wasn't the time. I'd suggest potentially reviewing policy to include something about if a subject is controversial or the subject of a current political event, as I could not find anything regarding that myself, and yet the majority of votes have something to do with that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a personal attack – a comment on the import of the photo given the current climate. "Smacks of" doesn't quite mean it's intentionally POV, it means that in the current circumstances it could be interpreted as POV; a connotation rather than a denotation. (Besides, it's a boring official photo.) – Sca (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a policy to review, I suggest the one I alluded to in my comment above: WP:NPOV. In ordinary times, an anodyne portrait portraying a politician as a normal if boring-looking human person would be neutral enough. These are not normal times, and that portrayal is (one hopes, temporarily) not a neutral one. It is telling the world "we think that this portrayal of Hawley, and not the one of him raising his fist in support of a fascist coup attempt, is how people should be thinking of him right now, and it's so important that you forget that other image that we're going to take the step of promoting the non-fascist image to our front page". Is that really what you think we should be saying? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me make my views on the subject clear once again. I do not like Josh Hawley. In fact, I shouldn't need to tell you this, but I in fact voted against him, twice, and in a large sense, I am sympathetic to what you are saying. However, after reviewing other photos that have been passed as FP, I do not believe that this standard you are proposing here has been equally applied at all. There are, right now, profiles of Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Andrew Jackson that have all passed FP, all of which depict their respective subjects as sage and statesmanlike. Why can't this same principle be applied to a sitting, democratically elected U.S. senator? Sure, Hawley has a now-infamous (and copyrighted and non-free) image of him raising a fist, but these figures surely have photos of mass graves and other atrocities that would reflect their tenures more accurately, and yet WP has decided to depict them this way in their infoboxes and even the Main Page. Additionally, an image on perhaps the most contentious issue in modern politics, depicting a slogan that would surely make some sensible people's blood boil, was allowed to go on the Main Page as well, because WP editors chose to ambivalently decide FP status based on the quality of an image. All I am asking is for this image to be treated the same. Some editors have done this, and I applaud them (though I would like more clarification on XOR'easter's "yearbook photo" comment, out of genuine curiosity). However, what many of you have shown me is that a fair, unbiased assessment of whether or not this image is of FP quality is not possible at this time, and as such I am calling on Armbrust to speedily close this nomination as well. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 04:57:31 (UTC)
Reason
This shows the aftermath of the deadliest aviation incident in history, where two Boeing 747s collided in a Spanish airport on March 27, 1977, causing 583 fatalities. Somewhat of a historical value and a detailed image. Could be reasonably restored, if needed.
Comment – It needs restoration in the sky area. I am not sure about the copyright, source page says copyright holder is unknown, I see no specifics about Creative Commons CC0. Bammesk (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 18:27:13 (UTC)
Reason
The picture is some impressive photography that shows off the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Currently in that article's infobox, greatly improving said article.
Oppose. An important event, certainly one with plenty of encyclopedic value to lend to its images, but I don't think this photo is very informative. The level of quality is unsurprising for impromptu news photography, but an image needs to be sufficiently iconic to rise above that and be featured, and I don't think this one is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed on Commons, the photographer described what he did and it passed unanimously. Charles participated and said "fine work". The background is dark because it was shot at f/22 with a (remote) flash. About "maybe string holding the leg up": I uploaded a frame from this GIF, see top view here. This is a natural pose. The forward elbow has a slight bend which wouldn't show in a lateral view. Bammesk (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I remember the discussion, though I should not have said fine work. Reading a Google translate of the photographer's comment he admits that it was a complicated set up shot. It is not natural. The photographer's comments explain how it was staged PetarCharlesjsharp (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well i hope they did not "torture" that animal for a picture. That should be prohibited. I dont understand why f/22 was used, on f/14-16 would be more than enough. Despite that Support, unless some other show up (staged etc.). --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that, despite my support vote there, but i did not read further text. So put one there, and they will fight for place, as someone mentioned. What is bad it become POTY, and even more bad, we had two crippled birds (from London) as POTY too. Those birds were tortured and could not fly. I remove my support vote. --Petar Milošević (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I google-translated the photographers comments: Hello everyone, thank you very much for the messages and doubts. I will try to clarify all the points questioned. Yes, the animal is wild and free-living. The technique used for this type of image with a black background is very simple, however very laborious. As previously mentioned by the colleague, in the EXIF of the photo it is possible to observe the f / 22 which would be quite high! with the foreground well lit and the background in shadow or dark, we managed to make the background very black. Allied to this, we can see in the image that there is practically no shadow in the amphibians, this is the most difficult part of the photograph! There is no information in the EXIF about the light source, as I use an external flash, attached to a flash radio. That alone would be enough for a black background, but to have no shadow in the image I used 3 light beaters, making the light soft and pleasant! The position of amphibians is completely natural in their habitat. Above all the Clado Phyllomedusidae, presents species that walk slowly and jump little, in the photo in question, a male disputes the branch with another male, when passing over him, an amphibian lowers itself as a form of defense as the other crosses, everything this lasted for about 4 seconds, making the image even more challenging! I hope I have helped, I am always available for further clarification. Renato Augusto Martins So this looks and feels genuine to me, and I've seen videos of frogs taking slow steps just like seen here. The link to the "faked frogs" doesn't show natural postures. Just my 2 €-cents... --Janke | Talk17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The translation says "very laborious". In the wild, no frog is going to hang around while a photographer does everything he says he did! It is a set up shot. 100%. He says so. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply – So it's not photoshopped and strung (frogs weren't forced and tortured). Now the oppose rationale is "staged" and "not in the wild". Several things: 1- Using the word "staged" on a frog implies undue manipulation (drugs, strings, etc). In this photo the frogs are doing what's natural to them. The photographer says so and I think we all agree on that. 2- A remote flash-plus-reflector isn't complicated these days, it could be a bit more elaborate than this. It doesn't mean a complicated setup. 3- The photographer has a track record with frogs-and-flash on flickr in 2010 here, more recently on Commons here. I enlarged his Commons photos and checked the catchlight, he uses flash-plus-reflector on many [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] +more, and flash on almost all photos. I think it's likely his shots are at a research university, animal sanctuary, zoo, etc. (on a sidenote, we don't have a policy or a precedence to oppose solely on that) 4- Yes the photographer says it's "very laborious", and he also says it's "very simple" in the same sentence. As Janke says: these are my 2 €-cents. Bammesk (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the 39 supports on Commons, which includes you, so I agree with your vote on Commons. Bammesk (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC) . . . . I agree the frogs are doing what's natural to them. I agree there was no undue manipulation (drugs, strings, etc). He said the frogs are wild and free-living, he didn't say he shot this in the wild. I think he had time, he knows what frogs do, he was hoping he get a good shot and he got it. I think he is legit, he doesn't do fake shots. I think you want to oppose, first fake background, now "staged" as a synonym for fake. By the way "not in the wild" and "staged" are not sufficient oppose rationales, we are an encyclopedia, not a wild life magazine. Example: [13]Bammesk (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The photo has considerable artistic merit. But this is not Commons. You believe an encyclopaedia should celebrate a photo which purports to be natural, but where the frog must have been placed on the branch by the photographer's assistant? I don't agree. I know quite a lot about frogs' behaviour. Do you? I was eventually happy last time as I had not read the English translation of the photographer's explanation of the lengthy set up. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You actually supported this twice on Commons, once before [14] and then after [15] reading the photographer's explanations. So you think this is a well-done shot: technically, humanely (since you know frogs), compositionally, etc. I don't know frogs but handling this type is easy [16]. They could have been placed on the branch. I am Ok with "well done" set up shots, we are an encyclopedia, and animals aren't an exception. I don't see undue manipulation in capturing this photo, so I am Ok with it. I see the frogs having a natural dispute. I don't see cruelty, given the unanimous supports on Commons including your support there. Bammesk (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Me, too. Frogs move just like that, so the posture is certainly not artificially staged, even though the "complicated" flash setup can be called "staging". I think this discussion went off the rails due to the first oppose (now struck), and is worth reconsidering by opposers. I see no reason this "climbing over" could not happen in the wild, without any interference at all (such as photographer placing frog/frogs on a branch - and we even don't know if that happend). --Janke | Talk14:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The flash isn't complicated, his camera and flash have wireless built-in [18][19]. The frogs are ~1.8 inch [20], image width is ~4 inch, lens is 105mm, so camera is ~1.5 ft away. Looking at the catchlight I am pretty confident it's 3 surfaces, as opposed to 3 reflectors; something like 4.5x1.5 ft in area folded into 3 sections, not as small as I previously thought. According to the file description [21] this was shot at the Michelin Reserve in Brazil, which is a protected nature reserve and research area [22]. Bammesk (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo of frogs in action; I haven't seen any evidence that this is unacceptably staged, and the photographer has explained in some detail how it was taken. TSP (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am Ok with the perspective, the edges of the building are vertical. The foreground/bottom is a bit too chaotic though. Bammesk (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's even possible the falls are never fully sunlit due to the terrain, and with only partial sunlight, the photo would look a lot worse. The lit background gives a dimension not possible in overcast light. --Janke | Talk17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2021 at 14:08:27 (UTC)
Reason
This is a high-quality reproduction of the now-public domain silent film The Big Parade, featuring the most complete runtime available. (The 1931 score by William Axt is still copyrighted and is thus not included in the file.)
Comment - This upload was done less than a week ago. Also I'm not sure if it not having the score hinders it to be a Featured Picture. GamerPro6405:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Besides the low bitrate (621 kbps at the time of the upload), the video resolution (480p) is particularly low compared to the Blu-ray source. I assume the upload is a direct conversion of the .mp4 file (754.4 MB) from the archive.org link without the 25 second black background at the beginning and the "edition credits" at the end. The archive.org from which the video is sourced also contains two video files which seem to have higher quality than the current quality of the upload:
a 1.3 GB .mkv file which, based from my experiences using archive.org, its the one the website automatically used to directly create the .mp4 file with downscaled quality.
an uncompressed 30 GB .m2ts file, that was directly extracted from the official Blu-ray.
Insufficient DPI is surely (in principle) a reason to oppose. You might think that it's not a good reason to oppose in this case (no opinion on that), but saying "pixels matter, not DPI" is hardly convincing. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2021 at 17:45:53 (UTC)
Original – Panoramic view of Mount Ngauruhoe as seen from Mount Tongariro, with Mount Ruapehu in the background.
Reason
Panorama of Mount Ngauruhoe and surroundings in New Zealand, with Mount Ruapehu in the background. FP on Commons. According to the article, it is designated as an active volcano. Last eruption was in 1977 and minor activity alerts in 2006 and 2015.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 11:08:38 (UTC)
Reason
File was nominated in 2006 but didn't pass because it was too small at the time. Now, the resolution is high enough to see the cracks. The only FPs of Washington are engravings, so it would be nice to see a painting of him become an FP.
Support – Famous painting. Does DPI really matter? I've always thought FPC has a pixel size requirement, not DPI on the original. (Larger is always better, of course, but this is already 3.4K x 5.4K...) --Janke | Talk09:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't matter as long as the scan captures the details of a painting or drawing. For example a line drawn by pencil can easily be 0.5mm wide (0.020 inch) or less, so a resolution of 50 pixels per inch would barely capture such a line or detail. Bammesk (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a big canvas, so even more resolution would be good for getting fine detail on the brushwork, but this is good enough for FP for now and we can replace if we ever get a really high-res scan. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is unfortunate that the castle blends so well into the background that the photo looks rather uninteresting in small size (as it would, on the Main Page). --Janke | Talk11:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Poor composition, too much environmental context. In effect, you can't see the castle for the trees. We don't really need the lower walls & battlements (Flankierungstürme?). Tut mir Leid. – Sca (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Eye looks out of focus. If this is a focus stack image, it could probably be improved? I also wonder, is it natural dew, or from a spray bottle... --Janke | Talk11:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]